Organ Sales Will Save Lives Summary

MacKay argues that although some argue against organ sales because the poor will be exploited, that whether the organ sales are legalized or not the poor are already being exploited. Poor people do not need harsher penalties against organ sales for protection from this exploitation. They need legalization monitored by government and other organizations in a regulated system to help them make more educated or “informed” decisions. This could be accomplished by adding education into the

In the United States, there are currently 116,608 people in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, and 75,684 people that are currently active waiting list candidates (HRSA, 2017). Between January and September 2017, there have only been 12,211 organ donors (HRSA, 2017) which is far less that the current demand for lifesaving organs. The shortage of donors could lead to an individual looking for outside sources such as the black market to find their lifesaving organ. Offering incentives to persons who chose to donate their organs or those of a deceased loved one is important because it could stop the illegal selling of organs, save the life of someone in need of an organ transplant and benefit both the donor and recipient.

Anthony Gregory writes in “Why Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help Save Lives, End Violence.” Gregory argues in the article that organ sale should be legalized in the United States. Gregory discusses the different range of arguments that people have that are opposed to the legalization of organ sale. He explains that organ sale is creating unnecessary suffering for needy patients and “violence.” The problem with Gregory’s article is that he uses direct quotations and extreme accusations that have no valid sources or are credited within the article. Gregory seems to be more focused on other’s arguments opposed to legalizing organ sale, rather than focusing on why he believes organ sale should be legalized. Gregory’s has many inflammatory statements and claims with no credible sources, along with his no background experience in health hazards of organ sale or the legalization aspect, and has complete disorganization throughout the entire article are all flaws which make his argument invalid.

While walking down a city street, alarming cries for help ring out through the air, and it is observed that an individual that appears to be living well has a helpless, poor victim held down, relentlessly beating them to the ground and taking what little they have left for their own advantage and benefit. What would be the right thing to do; run away or try to help, either by stepping in or calling the proper authorities? The morally ethical thing to do would be to help and do what has to be done to stand up for what is right. This same general scenario is happening not too far from this country, where organ brokers are victimizing innocent and poverty-stricken mothers and fathers trying to find a way to provide and get

The demand for organ donors far exceeds the supply of available organs. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) … there are more than 77,000 people in the U.S. who are waiting to receive an organ (Organ Selling 1). The article goes on to say that the majority of those on the national organ transplant waiting list are in need of kidneys, an overwhelming 50,000 people. Although financial gain in the U.S and in most countries is illegal, by legalizing and structuring a scale for organ donor monetary payment, the shortage of available donors could be reduced. Legalizing this controversial issue will help with the projected forecast for a decrease in the number of people on the waiting list, the ethical concerns around benefitting from organ donation, and to include compensation for the organ donor.

If the selling of organs becomes legal. Who is to say that the donor will not be tempted to sell the organs just because they are in need of money, and lack the understanding of the risks that are involved, such as kidney failure and various renal disorders that could occur? One could easily make a life changing decision under, stressful conditions, especially if that person has high debt or if that person feels that, that is their last hope. Many choices can affect their decision; however each person truly needs to understand the “why” and the effects of donor donation and not just become swayed because of the deposit of monetary funds. A physician who donated his organs at the age of eighteen went on to regret it after doing research and he

In this scenario, the good of saving lives out-weighs the bad of the selling of organs.

Dying painfully in a hospital bed is not the way anyone wants to go. Unfortunately for many people, it is a reality. Thousands of people a year end up dying while waiting for an organ that could save their lives. While on the other side of the world, thousands of people die a year, but from infection when an organ is forcefully taken from them to sell on the black market. There are two sides of the organ donation list, and both can end in death. This paper will discuss the shortage of donated organs and the issues with the current donation system. It will also discuss the black market for transplant organs and possible solutions to viable organ shortage. The focus of this paper will be on transplant kidneys as they are the most desirable organ for buyers and sellers.

It doesn’t make sense for people to die unnecessarily if there is a way to easily save their lives. Author of "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Joanna Mackay seems to agree. In her essay, she argues that the government should regulate organ sales, rather than ban them. In "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Mackay uses facts and statistics to reveal shocking numbers to the audience dealing with the long and lengthy waitlist for an organ, as well as how many patients have passed annually due to end-stage renal disease. Mackay also uses counterarguments in pieces of her essay to relive any doubts or questions they have to persuade them to take her opinion. The author also

Selling organs is a rising problem in the healthcare community, government and morality. Organ sales has become the topic of discussion for numerous reasons. Some of which being lowering the wait time on the organ transplant waitlist and taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged. This issue affects many people on many different levels, some people morally or legally but mostly importantly medically. What this basically comes down to is: “Who are we to judge what people do with their bodies?”. The answer to this question lays in many different sources. The simplified answer is no we can not tell people what they can and can not tell other people what they can and can ot do with their bodies.

Joy Victory 's "Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich" provides great factual evidence to support her main claim that the rich have more advantages for acquiring an organ than do the poor and uninsured. The extensive factual evidence includes a personal account of an uninsured organ candidate, statistics and multiple expert testimonies to indicate that many variables hinder the poor and uninsured from receiving an organ. One of the most important variables is the socio-economic status of the potential organ recipient because statistics and evidence indicate receiving organs is determined primarily on a financial basis. Also, the article suggests the uninsured and poor not only suffer from physical ailments but also from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. One of the ways Victory uses factual evidence is by narrating a personal account of an uninsured 34- year-old who is not only suffering physically but also suffering from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. Brian Regions, the uninsured 34- year-old, is physically in agony every day with congestive heart failure and is consistently facing insufficient health care (Victory 736). As Victory accurately points out, Regions is not the only uninsured individual who is at risk for his expensive physical problems. It is also reported that there are thousands of others who are in physical agony with incurable heart damage (Victory 736). Without future heart support and financial intervention, Regions and many others may

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from

To support his argument, Huebner uses statements such as "The sellers are often tricked or coerced by brokers, they don 't always get the promised payment, and even when they are paid, that rarely solves whatever problem prompted them to sell the organ. In fact, the "solution" usually makes matters much worse.” Huebner also states that "Rich patients in need of organs take advantage of the world 's poor"(Huebner, Albert), insinuating that only rich people can afford to buy organs. While both of these statements support the claim made, there isn 't much actual research to support it. No evidence or believable examples were found in the article. While it may be true that more rich people are able to receive organ transplants, it 's not fair to say that it 's only the rich people who are exploiting the poor. That is, if they are even being exploited at all. Who is to say that the poor people who would sell organs wouldn 't be doing so in order to make a better life for themselves and their family? Until an organ market is established and research is done to support these claims, there is very little fact to support them. This leads into the next claim, that commodifying organs will take the integrity out of donating.

They conclude that “research shows that the underlying motivation of most paid kidney donors is poverty” and that “paid kidney donation is associated with depression, regret, and discrimination” (The State of the International Organ Trade, 2007). In other words, throwing money at the poor in exchange for their organs will not get them out of poverty. Offering a financial incentive program for organ donation will allow the rich to exploit the poor and deprive the poor from life-saving donation. The demand for organs will likely remain higher than the supply; therefore, prices for organs will become competitive and eliminate the chance for the poor to receive a transplant. Implementing financial compensation would only serve to shift the demographic of organ recipients away from those with the greatest need to those with the greatest wealth.